Vinod Manilal Gujrathi v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

911-WP-1821-2006+ -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 911 WRIT PETITION NO. 1821 OF 2006 BHIMRAO SHYAMRAO MAHALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1822 OF 2006 SMT. ANNAPURNA TULSHIRAM KOLI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1823 OF 2006 BALU S/O CHUDAMAN PATIL

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1824 OF 2006 VIKAS RAMDAS BODADE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1825 OF 2006 DEVIDAS S/O DHANU SHEKOKAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1826 OF 2006 PANDURANG MAHADU MALI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

911-WP-1821-2006+ -2WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1827 OF 2006 RAJENDRA S/O PRABHAKAR KANDELKAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1828 OF 2006 VINOD S/O MANILAL GUJRATHI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1829 OF 2006 SHRIDHAR S/O SHANKAR DHANGAR/WAGH

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .....

Advocate for Petitioners in all WPs : Mr. Manoj Shinde and Mr. M.K. Goyanka AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. S. K. Tambe .....

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATED : 20th November, 2019 PER COURT:- Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all these Writ Petitions pertain to rejection of nomination in respect of election of the Society way back in the year 2006. Learned counsel accepts that all the Writ Petitions have now become infructuous. In view of the same, all the Writ Petitions are hereby dismissed as infructuous. Rule discharged. ( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/